I'm pretty sure that Andy wrote off some claim about a heatwave being proof of GW with a "Of course it's hot, it's summer." But when it snows... Ermehgerd!! Snew! Glerberl Werming is teh herx! PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It really encapsulates Andy's brand of dishonesty. Of course he knows that this effectively legalized gay marriage in many states, but what's so interesting is that he doesn't want his readers to know that. Like if he just keeps sugar coating the truth, gay marriage can be stopped. Probably more of a pride thing for him. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I remember having an argument with my RE teacher in school because she claimed the fact that colour exists is proof that god does because "there's no need for colour". Reminds me of that. X Stickman (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ref RE teacher, I once asked mine why he was teaching his subject as fact when the physics, biology and geography teachers was also teaching facts that contradicted his. I got a detention for insolence.--Mercian (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

He was just preparing you for life. The lesson is show up at school/work/funeral/other, keep your head down, leave. Fonzie (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That section of Talk:Main Page has become even weirder now, and of course there's been a ban. Fonzie (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely "scientists are not to be trusted on matters of Blood Moons because so many of them are rapists" doesn't qualify for weird considering those involved. But it is weird that, after banning the original poster, Ken is going after SamHB, who posted one of his achingly balanced arguments. Whoover (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The linked WND article is even crazier than what CP posted. Snrub (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The award given to a Muslim girl, who was fighting for better education for girls. That'll really go down well with the man who sets different tests for the girls and boys he teaches. PsyGremlinRunāt! 18:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Andy reads this page? I want him to see this because Conservative actually deletes messages about himself from Andy's talk page within minutes of posting. He doesn't seem all that interested in running his wiki sometimes so I doubt he ever looks at a summary of the server logs, but if he does then a few people following the links back from here to his user page and talk page might get him to have a look.

The only other thing I can think of is to make the edit to his talk page during one of the two hour periods that Conservative is eating or sleeping or something. I have also sent a similar message to aschlafly@aol.com which is the listed as the registrant email address for conservapedia.com, and cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com as indicated in the Conservapedia editor's guide. I suppose it is just possible he has read it.

Now I know the obvious question all this raises is "Who gives a shit?" but I am intrigued by the fact that the answer doesn't seem to include Andrew Schlafly. — Unsigned, by: 94.1.139.153 / talk / contribs

Andy does not read this page. He does check Recent Changes pretty frequently though (he does revert a lot of spam and vandalism), so there's a good chance he did see that this happened. He just doesn't care. He almost never does anything against Ken. When he does, it's either Andy "trimming" something or Ken has done something way over the line. Bullying new users is par for the course, so Andy's not going to do anything about it. Cow...Hammertime! 22:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey nice typesetting on your blog. It's probably a theme, but Merriweather is a nice face and the line height is pretty close to the Golden Mean. Nice choice. The grid doesn't make sense, but overall it's a nice page. Good work. Nutty Roux (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Over 3 weeks without a mention, 1000s of inane edits, tens of new articles about atheism and whatever he detests and answering and questioning posts by long banned users he finally gets the therapy he deserves, a mention on RW.--Mercian (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just one of the built in themes. And I'm glad I could help with his therapy, I guess. 90.209.243.6 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I hope you're happy. Ken's mention here has clearly sparked off his manic "up" phase and now the whole of "recent changes" is him tweaking his "Atheism and..." articles. Apart from Karajou doing some drive-by blocking. PsyGremlinRunāt! 11:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The poor sick one has been in full-blown obsessive around-the-clock turd-polishing mode for weeks now, so I don't think this mention had much of an effect. Whoover (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear goat, I've just looked at recent changes again. Almost all of the last 1000 edits have been his polishing. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess he chose a good username for that site, it almost looks like a half broken bot caught in a loop. --Revolverman (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My favorite recent polishingimg is to a press release from 20 years ago, by a guy who died 19 years ago, about an atheist refusing to debate because the right to sell the replay would belong exclusively to the dead guy. Lithium would do wonders. Whoover (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

At a tangent, there's been nothing happening at the Question Evolution blog for a couple of months. Has the spearhead of the crack creationist assault force become bogged down on the beaches of something or other? London Grump (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of glad he's given up on that. As much amusement as his continued promises of jam tomorrow provided, there's only so much you can laugh at his pathetic lies before the amusement turns to pity. --JeevesMkIIThe gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

He should do a Kickstarter for it. Fonzie (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Looks like kenny has finally crashed. No edits since 5.20 this morning. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that. As I write this of the last 300 edits from 18.45 yesterday 294 of them are ken's polishing. Looks like his meds have failed again sadly. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As of now, 468 of the last 487 edits made to CP, covering from 16h42 yesterday to 08:58 (US time) with barely a break. But as far as Andy is concerned, this is totally normal behaviour. PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you don't get banned for not having the machismo to address Ken's question about all those scientist rapists (hint: recruitment bias in a study of subjects invited to talk about sexual harassment via social media -- and told to invite their friends who've had bad experiences), you're needed at Counterexamples to Relativityimg again. It seems that Andy's just discovered them atheist scientists and their inflation and declares it "implausible." This from the guy who rejects that eating a pound of cake gives you c^2 energy, so the plausibility bar may be a bit low. Basically, only physics that a fifth-grader can understand is beautiful enough for God to have had any part in. Whoover (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, he's at over 24 hours now and isn't showing any signs of slowing down. I tried posting something on Andy's talk page with a disposable account to tell him about it and express some concerns... Guess who burned the post and banned me for two years... 74.59.250.92 (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It amuses me that Real, True Christian Ken doesn't go to church. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it for marathon editing sprees on CP. It's almost like he's a lying hypocrite or something. --JeevesMkIIThe gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

His latest episode was almost 30 hours. Do you seriously think he knows what day it is? He's probably at the voices-in-his-head stage of mania. Whoover (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As I recall his longest editing spree was about 38 hours. Acei9 01:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if it's not a record for time, surely it's a record for the greatest percentage of total edits over some long time span, since Ken is pretty much laboring alone over there.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If Andy was in anyway a responsible human being he would have a word with him, not to tune down the madness but to take proper breaks, If. He is a lawyer for a medical group and will know fine well this pattern is bad for his health, therefore he is an irresponsible twat without a trace of empathy.--Mercian (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Which edit are you guys counting from? It looks to me as though he may have broken his record, or at least came bloody close. I'm not sure about the time stamps ... although it looks like they're all UTC. S do the ones on this site line up with CP? Ruddager (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I counted 39 hours. Not all of the edits are visible in his contributions due to deleting and recreating pages. --AntiTheist (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yikes, it looks like he went from about 4pm on the 11th to 6am on the 13th for just under a 40-hour edit spree. His biggest break was 2 hours and 15 minutes, but apart from that managed about 380 edits - almost one every 6 minutes, and that's only the visible ones. His most fervent work seemed to be towards the end too. It's exhibitions like this which occasionally humanise him in my eyes and make him seem like a vulnerable person in need of help, if not simply some friends. Ruddager (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean the 13th, surely? Otherwise it's 14 hours. But yeah, if that was my website, and I saw an editing pattern like that from a user, esecially one of my long-time inner circle, I'd be picking up a phone and saying, "Dude, is everything ok?" Then again, I doubt they have Ken's number - they don't even know his real name. PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely this is the work of the collective called Conservative? He/she/it must have had a shift schedule planned out. Aboriginal Noise (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there'll be an FYI, once the lithium kicks in, telling us how we can't possibly know how many people use the conservative account, and how they all got 8 hours of sleep, dreaming of long-haired Korean creationist sweethearts... PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a new, disturbing record for him, to edit for 36h without having more than 2h-breaks. Rather frightening. Any of CP's sysop (besides Ken obviously) reading this? Please intervene! --larron (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

So Ken, "you" is a singular pronoun in English, is it? Dost thou desire that we call thee and thy fictional colleagues in the Conservative collective "ye"? Spud (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My Latin teacher in college was a great admirer of "y'all" as the second-person plural pronoun. Maxus (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorta. It's a measure of the longest break in a streak, so smaller values are of more note. The Y axis is oriented from small to large, because that's conventional, but the bars go from large to small to draw attention to the smallest largest breaks. It's pretty good graphical design(even if it did confuse you) Ikanreed (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What (s)he said (including the part about "pretty good graphical design" - thanks!). But I made a new version which may be clearer. --larron (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And now the quarrelsome/deceitful user/users of the DerrenB2 account has/have had the last word! 90.210.81.122 (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No scratch that. I must have imagined it! 90.210.81.122 (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record the message which lasted for all of 5 minutes was posted immediately after Conservative wrote, "All of these factors make it extremely unlikely that the User: Conservative account will continue this discussion," read something along the lines of "Does this mean we are now free to engage in last wordism?" This was black-holed by Karajou while Conservative was on a break. And yes I am DerrenB2 mostly just mentioning this for attention. 90.210.81.122 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The collective sweatshop known as user:Conservative has been on another editing marathon, starting at around 11:15 pm US time last night. About 180 edits, up to 7:42 this morning. So another, all night, 8-and-a-bit-hour session. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The man has drive, determination, a sharp attention to detail and other good qualities I give him that. Also if he substituted atheism with poverty many of his articles would make some sense.--Mercian (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If you start from 16:37 EST yesterday until he crashed (maybe?) at 08:50 EST this morning, he made 201 edits (not including oversights and blocking), with only a 3 hour break from 20:00-23:00. --Nets awesome (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Alaska overturns gay marriage and all Jpatt can think about is a 60-yr-old perv marrying a 10-yr-old.img Hint: That's Catholic priests you're thinking of, not gays. Also, look up the meaning of "consent" - it's same reason gay marriage won't lead to people marrying their pets, you dumb bigot. PsyGremlinRunāt! 18:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

F me. Andy has just reverted and oversighted jpatts shite. You are REALLY OUT THERE when andy finds your crap to right wing and extreme. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And jpatt spits in andy's face by readding the commentimg. Will andy oversight again or simply roll over and let his belly be tickled like a good lap dog does? Oldusgitus (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ken is very, very fond of this chartimg, which purports to show that a preponderance of atheists are in the 65-72 IQ range. With that level of mental challenge (once called retardation), these are people who can't use a phone book or (significantly) fill out a form. Does anybody understand the data being misrepresented here? Are these people who were unable to even answer questions about religion, rendering them "low church atheists"? I know he stole it from Voxday, but there's no more sense expressed there. Whoover (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing he doesn't actually understand the difference between High church and non High (or low) church. High church is essentially the old guard. Here in the UK they are frequently referred to as Anglo-Catholic and despite being Anglican they retain many of the practices and liturgies more associated with Roman Catholicism. In my experience they are frequently small c conservatives in socitial senses and even in political often being left-leaning liberals in many wqays, for example some I have known have often been quite tolerant of homosexuality and homosexuals personally whilst strongly against allowing gay clergy and they usually are strongly against women clergy of any kind. But they tend to be large C conservative in theological matters. I am (in general) talking from my own experience of anglo-catholics. It's decades since I've been into a church, high or low. Edit to add - vox day is of course talking complete bollocks, and kenny is simply regurgitating the vomit of his master which he has faithfully swallowed whole. There's no such thing as high or low church atheists but it suits their mendacity to pretend that atheism is a religion. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wasn't asking about the weird metaphor of "low church atheist," but the analysis of data showing that atheism is the religion of the feeble-minded. I wondered whether anyone had been through the General Social Survey data. Whoover (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oldusgitus rendition of High Church is pretty good; Low Church brings to mind Pentecostals & Baptists meeting in a store front or living room. God only knows what Ken is talking about (although God is not bound to listen to sinners). nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 17:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The graph is a quote-mine. It shows that people bang on average intelligence are theists and above average intelligence people are atheist. It cuts off before genius level but that graph is rising sharply. How does the graph support his cause?--Mercian (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The graph actually makes no sense. I assume the real chart should show population breakdown in IQ range buckets. Smoothing that makes it impossible to interpret. For instance, on the Theist curve, if IQ 95 is 20% of the population, and IQ 96 is 21%, IQ 97 is 22%, IQ 98 is 23%, IQ 99 is 24% and IQ 100 is 25%, you see the problem. The area under the curve is supposed to be 100% but Voxday, in all his brilliance, seems to be unclear on the concept. But the area under the atheist "mentally challenged" curve is significant, which is what he's claiming is proof of something or other. I'm challenging that part of the curve. It's implausible that respondents with an IQ below 70 can be "registered atheists." Whoover (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone here a fan of IQ tests anyway? So far as I am concerned they are flawed and frequently culturally biased, persistently marking down those of non-european descent due to the way they are crafted. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

IQ tests are a tool which can be used or abused. So trying to compare "intelligence" across diverse groups is problematical but within a group I understand that they can be useful. There are several problems with VD's chart, not least the unbalanced horizontal axis. For IQ, which is normalised to 100, then you should at least display the same number of standard deviations on either side, something which is conspicuously missing on the high side. Furthermore, IQ is not a linear measure it is a statistical distribution with 15 points representing one standard deviation, so the number of people who fall at the 65 point mark is significantly less than 1% of the general population; and in the US where atheists are already in a minority, then the study probably has a single data point. Even then, given that someone at that IQ level has by definition limited mental ability, then expecting a meaningful and reliable answer to the question is absurd. VD is either woefully ignorant or has been reading How to Lie With Statistics and Charts. Given his track record, the latter option seems the more likely explanation. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 10:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

IQ scores statistically have any validity only up to the age of about 15 or 16. The chart only shows that average intelligence (100) is determined by belief in God, making the whole scheme suspect. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 17:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

My WAIS-IV manual would disagree with you on that. They have validity over a much higher range than that. The WAIS-IV has both good validity and reliability up to around 90 years of age. I'd be curious to see what data you're basing your claim on. I can cite the WAIS-IV manual if you want. Unless you reject the idea of IQ I don't see how you could claim that there's no validity over 16. And for reference, I am a fan of IQ tests. I wouldn't use a WAIS or WISC to compare IQs across vastly different cultural groups though. I don't expect someone in the middle of Peru to know why public libraries are a benefit to democracy. However, I might use a nonverbal IQ WNV or UNIT) test which are culturally universal and pretty damn good. Here's a good picture of an IQ standard distribution to better exemplify Genghis' explanation. It is worth noting that not all IQ tests use a SD of 15. The Stanford Binet uses 16 and some others use a SD of 10. AyzmoCheers 18:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Kinda back from the dead here, but I think Ken DeMyer is trolling me right now and I'm looking for confirmation. Recently, I picked up some mocking comments from a "Mark Goodson" on some CP-related podcasts I did years ago. Kinda weird, but nothing I'd knock myself out over, except that I noticed something in one of the comments from "Mark" - he never refers to Ken as Ken, only as "User:Conservative." An odd idiosyncrasy from a random troll. I noticed a "Mark Davidson" listed among Ken's known and suspected sockpuppets, but has anyone ever seen "Mark Goodson" show up, say, on Yahoo! Answers? And if this is Ken, what's the best way to get rid of him? I'd just as soon he not hang around. --江斯顿What is it now? 05:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Challenge him to a debate. He'll demand $20,000 to partake, and then run away for good. As for the nick, it's not one I've seen before. Then again, he used two or three different e-mail addresses when posting to the secret sysop groups, so gawd knows just how many socks he has. probably one for each voice. PsyGremlinRunāt! 05:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

In those few moments of each day when Ken is not feverishly posting (or deleting) his gibberish on Conservapedia he trawls the net looking for places to spam link his CP articles or make drive-by and run-away challenges. Mark Goodson is probably one of the people who make up the committee collectively known as User:Conservative. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 09:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You might have noticed a new CP editor taking a Ken-light obsessive approach to "Badger Skins"img. The article is full of fascinating raving about the use of unicorns and dolphin skin in the Tabernacle. You may have seen the article before. Before he was banned at Wikipedia, a user and his many socks shared his knowledge there. "Badger skins" is now a salted page over there. But he seems to have settled into his new home nicely as one of Ken's minionsimg. Whoover (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Whew. That looks like what my father used to call "finding an easier confessor," what might nowadays be called forum shopping, in which someone gets booted off Wikipedia for being a tedious tendentious prat, and finds some other wiki whose patience has not yet been exhausted. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think perhaps we poured too much scorn on geocities while it was with us. It was a convenient place where all these nutters could vent whatever was on their minds, and kept it all in one easily ignorable place. Like landfill, it's unloved but we'd probably miss it if it were gone. --JeevesMkIIThe gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone checked the recent changes lately? It seems to be all Ken... Is there any way to get exact up to date statistics on % of edits by a particular user?205.237.78.11 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)— Unsigned, by: 205.237.78.11 / talk / contribs

Ermmm, at a rough guess you could try looking up the page very slightly. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean is there a special page or something to get fresh data? 205.237.78.11 (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe in the old days when we still really, really cared about CP, there might have been. Now that it's become the demented parent, dribbling away in the corner, not so much. PsyGremlinRunāt! 19:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Just from some querying at a glance, Ken has made 2,557 of the 4,353 edits on Conservapedia for the month of October 2014. The edit number should be much higher though due to his habit of deleting and burying everything. But I guess making an edit to Conservapedia roughly once every 12 minutes for the last three weeks is an accomplishment? -Nets awesome (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd still like to know what happened with Project 200 and the booklet. Ah well...Acei9 21:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Damn. It's always hard to tell if Ken is getting worse or if it's just a problem of perception. It's so sad. I'd like to hear his justification of why he's not a government mooch. I wonder if he's ever been able to work. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Says who Ken isn't say, disabled or retired? Afterall, 24-hr editing streaks may requires those attributes to work. Or are you saying that Ken is a hive mind of more than 1 person who take shifts to work and other shifts to edit? ThiehMonitoring virgin birth experiment 12:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's all the same Ken, I won't take advice on how to spend my time from somebody who spends 36 hours editing sad articles on an even sadder hate blog. And no, there is no mysterious collective hiding behind the user:Conservative nick. The voices in your head don't count as multiple users. PsyGremlinRunāt! 05:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"There is one thing you can be sure of: John Wayne was not a militant atheist!" --Mercian (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

*wipes eyes* Oh, so much of funny. You'd think the banner headline "Porn Star Legend Retires At Age 81" would be a giveaway, but nooooo. Thanks for the good laugh, Kara. Now hurry up and burn the evidence. Yes, yes is it satire.PsyGremlinRunāt! 18:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's like this site was created for fooling people on facebook. I love it. The other story (dirty liberal thug stuffing a ballot box) is pretty funny, too. Even WND admits it was perfectly legal. It does fall in line with their voter suppression tactics. Why aren't these lazy infirmed geriatrics wheeling themselves into the polling station? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So... Is CP now officially a Parody site now? Or is there some sort of rule that sites referencing parody sites are not parody sites? K61824TK = Terry Koeckritz 17:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The rule is that if the referencing site is full of people who are too stupid to recognize parody, it's a special case called Conservapedia. Andy himself regularly demonstrates the corollary of Poe's Law that asserts its commutative property. This is sincere extremism that appears to be parody. Whoover (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Why?img Nothing ever happens. Just the sysops live-blogging their internet surfing through In the News, and maybe an occasional content-scarce essay based on dubious statistics.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently he got over 2000 thumbs up on an article that has less than 2000 page views. I think the audience for the Freedom from Atheism "Foundation" is attention-deficit rageaholics. --JeevesMkIIThe gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

How long has "church" been a verb? Whoover (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling with your pedantry here, can you elucidate? "To church" has a long history, unless you are referring to "churchless" then it would be analogous to "homeless". ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 17:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Pedantry? I've never heard of people being churched or unchurched. My spellchecker has never heard of unchurched either. I'll happily stipulate that's it a thing. Not being familiar with it "pedantic," not a thing. Whoover (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a US thing. I have never heard the term "To church" in my 53 years here in the UK (and several months over the years visiting South Africa). Oldusgitus (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as a Canadian I can't say I've ever heard that term used that way either. - Grant (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's in the OED from the 16th century Sphincter (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that here (UK) it's usually referring to a woman after chidbirth (when she'd be "unclean?) - a bit of googling confirms that. Scream!! (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well there you go, I learn something every day. I've still never heard it in use in 53 years though. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Goes to show. There's always something new dunno where I heard it but I've been around for 70+ years - through most of which I've not been "churched" though. Scream!! (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oxford labels it as "archaic" (as does Merriam-Webster), so it's not surprising that very few people here have heard it used. Evidently it's not in everyday use in general anymore. - Grant (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the Freedom From Atheism Foundation Ken's new side project? Should we be expecting a booklet sometime next year? Snrub (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Book of Common Prayer has a section for Churching of Women. I never understood what it was for. Now I do. Thanks, Scream!!Cardinal Fang(talk) 16:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

They barely tolerate him. They have never defended him beyond deleting and burning any talk against him and banning the offenders. You'll never hear any of them defend his actual work, give him any praise or speak highly of him, nor will you hear them admonish him. None of them respond to posts Ken puts on their talk pages. Even when he deleted the MPR and replaced it with his own blog there was nary a peep from any of the admins. -Nets awesome (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

indeed. It not so much that they like ken, it more that they dislike dissent. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Three guys break into a house and use guns to terrorise the family - yay guns! So then grandpa manages to grab his gun and shoot all three of them, killing one - yay guns!! And for his trouble, he gets shot a few times himself and is still in the ICU - yay guns!!! Ruddager (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as you stay away from human reproduction, the Catholic Church seems to typically be far less anti-science than most other branches of Christianity. Between this and the pope's comments about gays, I'm surprised Andy hasn't converted to Southern Baptist, which seems like it would be far more in line with his views. Snrub (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Andy is no more catholic than I am. He may pay lip service to the faith but imo he long ago stopped actually believing in any of the tenets of the faith that don't fit his bigoted viewpoint, a viewpoint entirely dominated by the single most dominating influence in his life. What he will do when the malevolent influence of mamma s lifts from his shoulders will be interesting to watch. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure Andy's "ideas" could even be classified as religious anymore. He's gone full politics, religion is just the justification. Acei9 09:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Andy believes Christianity is inherently political. His delusions lead him to believe that he's the one true Catholic. This is why I wish people were still around to challenge him. Peering into the mind of Andy was equally fascinating and terrifying. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think His Popiness also believes that Christianity is, at least sometimes, inherently political but he doesn't reach the same political conclusions as American ultra-conservatives. Logic would say to Schlafly, "think about what your religious leader is saying about the poor, the sick, gays excluded from Holy Communion, etc." Schlafly tells logic (and the Pope) where to stick it. Cardinal Fang(talk) 14:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The last time something like this happened, Andy harped about how it wasn't "from the chair" (or whatever the Latin is) so it wasn't "official". Occasionaluse (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Popes speaking ex cathedra are (as a matter of dogma) infallible. This functions as a double-edged sword for the Roman Catholic Church because if any ex cathedra speech is widely agreed to be erroneous the whole edifice collapses. So in practice almost nothing a Pope says is ex cathedra and only a handful of relatively modern (20th century) examples exist, all concerning minutiae of Catholic supernatural belief. Nevertheless, encyclicals and other utterances are given great importance, if Andy just rejects out-of-hand anything that isn't given the ex cathedra treatment he's no more a Roman Catholic than a WASP is a Black Caribbean Buddhist if they tick the wrong boxes on the equal opportunities paperwork. Tialaramex (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Badger skinsimg guy is going the full Ken. He's got four articles, three on the giant multi-colored unicorn of the Old Testament. The fourth, an odd stubimg conflates this guy and this guy, although they died about 60 years apart. He also uses the wrong spelling for the second guy, confusing him with his great-grandfather. Not surprisingly, Ken has taken this new patient editor under his wing. Whoover (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

He's been quietly building up to full blown idiocy for a while now. JoeyJ is the other on I'm keeping an eye on. Classic parodist behaviour. Between them they could yet make cp interesting again, although I don't hink badgers is a parodist. Just a nutter. Vargas Milan interest me as well. 'He' could yet get interesting. I await kenny's 'i told you so' claims in the next few months when they all out themselves. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ken has been polishing Atheism Quotesimg lately, a particularly fetid group. I never noticed the one from Plato though: "Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding." I'm not sure what that means, but this is the first time I realized that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter and the gang were worthy. In fact, I'd have thought that Ken considers pagans atheists. All that crap about atheists is a lot easier to take now that I realize it presumes fungible deities. I wonder if he knows that Plato also thought that sex lotteries were the best one-man/one-woman approach and that defective babies should be destroyed? Whoover (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Eesh. Other than the yuck factor of hypergamy being a term en vogue with the MRA crowd nowadays, and the fact that it was used to refer to marrying into a higher social class (think Indian castes), it does not follow that men must make more than women do in such a society. Even if it was an ironclad law, it would only mean that a man's potential mates are drawn from the pool of women who make less than he does. That has nothing to do with what median incomes are between men and women. Aaand already I've put more thought into the matter than Andru has. Shit. He got me again.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought about it for a second or two and moved on. And I still put more thought into than andy probably did. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me or is Conservapedia somewhat more boring than usual? The only entertaining parodist is a Ken-Clone and the Recent Changes are pretty much just Ken and Dataclarifier turd-polishing. Should we try a week-long Conservapedia boycott to see if the sudden drop in page views shakes things up? The worst that might happen is Ken binge-editing for 72 hours and being found dead a few days after he suddenly stops editing... Even Andy is barely active and Karajou is just uploading and blocking... 205.237.78.11 (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Badger Skins guy is just sad. I'm reduced to analyzing JoeyJ's gems, like "The Molar mass is the quotient of the mass m and the feel quanty n."img "Quanty" is probably quantity but I have no guess about "feel." Something to do with Avocado's Number, I imagine. But all told, the fun bits like this and Andy's celebrating Putin's censorship of the internet because the gays are not worth slogging through the acre-feet of crap. Whoover (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Andy stopped caring a long time ago, and he was never capable of dealing with anyone when he did care. At this point Conservapedia probably just serves as another way for Phyllis to funnel money to Andy from the Eagle Forum political interest group, just like the fake classes he "teaches" at the Eagle Forum University. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It can't be that dead; Andy reduced this users block one minute after Ken gave him two years. The only violation appears to be username considering they never made a mainspace edit. This is Andy-style management, telling Ken to lighten up on the blocks. Also it shows Andy's concern over declining traffic. But after 7 years they still haven't figured out User:EvolutionIsCool won't even remember his username a month from now. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 00:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

EvolutionIsCool made an edit to the Creationism article, but Ken burned it. Whoover (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That CP entry on molar mass was shamefully inadequate, I've just done my best to improve itimg. How long have I got before I get rumbled? Discussion topic: is morarity objective or subjective? ProblemChimp (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty nice, making molarity vs. molality an atheist vs. biblical science thing. It may live forever. Shouldn't you have done something with feel quanty? Or is that too much? Whoover (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Give me time, I'd like to build a {cough} rep for solid reliability first. (I trolled the WP article on a well-known band a couple of days ago, and think managed to get my edit to stick (a vigilante has improved my effort, a mate's earlier attempt got zapped.)) To an analytical chemist, normality is a much more practical idea than morality molarity - I have a mind to impart that practical wisdom to CP, if I can. Leave me the elbow-room ... molarity is an invention of Satan. That Sun IS hot. ProblemChimp (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It'd be something they could get their teeth into. SophieWilder 19:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems Ken is the only one who actually cares about Conservapedia anymore. Andy only uses it to occasionally make a comment about teh gheys or to complete another perfect doubling of his Conservative word list, Terry just uses it to linkspam to his blog, and Karajou randomly shows up to block people. I wouldn't be surprised if Andy is simply keeping the site running because Ken wouldn't have anything to do if it shut down. Snrub (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What would Ken be doing if conservapedia didn't exist? Writing green ink letters to the local papers? Ikanreed (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Rats! I've been spotted by Karajou (block reason: stupidity). I liked that idea of the molar majority, and had in mind adding something about molar relativism also. ProblemChimp (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As you knew damn well you would which is why you came here shouting about how clever you were in 'editing' cp. My sock has been active over there for over 4 years now and is still live, largely because I don't wave my willy about when I make an edit. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I do like how Karajou reverted back to the "feel quanty" edit. In the name of stupidity. Whoover (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

In the distant past, I seem to remember reading a page on the effective management of a stable of socks. Things like keeping track of the style and circadian routines of one's minions' activity so as to avoid suspicion. It may even have included tips on how not to wave one's willy about. Now I can't find it, the page, that is. RW must have outgrown that lamentable phase of its existence. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A fair chunk of the original RW editors actually began by doing their best to help Andy write an encyclopedia. He was repeatedly warned about the likes of TK and Ken, and about becoming even more of a laughing stock if he allowed them to shape editorial policy. There was always an element of parody and vandalism, but it only really got going after it became clear that established scientific fact wasn't welcome in a number of key articles, even if merely presented as an alternative view to their creationist / ultra-conservative nonsense.

In the end, outright mockery and subversion became the only sane response to a man determined to shoot himself in the foot, forever. Robledo (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

God, I remember talking to Terry on IM. He was a weird bird. He just loved to pull strings. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Aye. A thoroughly horrible bastard, but fucking talented. I never quite understood how he managed to worm his way back in with them after opening up the SDG. TerryH was ready to sue and Andy was just as ready to represent him. Robledo (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Inexperience/obviousness might have been a better reason for my suspension. Live and learn; no real loss, especially since the preceding post to mine is still up. From what I've seen, though, the CP plain-vanilla science pages are so pitiful that they're hardly worth trolling. But hey, it was a useful lesson to learn that the mods there have nothing better to do are so vigilant. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Sorry? Are you saying you were unaware that anger bear and kenn obsessively read this site? You are inexperienced then. And one of the general rules here is don't out vandalism. It's especially silly if the vandalism is your own. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Does "never having visited CP until two weeks ago, and having made precisely one edit there" count? Gimme a break. (Of course, it wouldn't occur to me to mention anyone else's suspected contribution: that would be way beyond silly.) ProblemChimp (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I've now also had the compliment of an IP block. My apologies to anyone else in Yeurpe who might have been caught by it. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly guys, I get misty eyed when I read some of the best, easiest, and last work I did at CP -- finishing Andy's Political Cards; those 52 puns just rolled off my fingertips in a few hours. And the page really shows Andy has a sense of humor. It's frustrating to see it lay there 95% complete and only needs a little imagination and minor tweaks. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What's stopping you from fellating Andy's ego to get the block undone? It's unlikely you'll cross paths with Karajou again, so long as you don't infringe on his bird territory. Then again, I guess Andy needs Karajou more than you, so if he protested Andy would have to support him. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

IIRC it was the man child who went up against Nobs and no matter what else is fucked up with kenny his memory is not. Nobs goes back, kenny will block him before he manages to finish his first edit. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There seems to have been a flurry of islamophobic news stories on mpr recently. Is this new cp policy or has it always been so blatent and I have just not noticed? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh... well, the right wing tends to get on little self-supported bursts of hatred of things. Islam makes the list often enough. I haven't really noticed conservapedia being different from any of the rest of the clogosphere in that regard. Ikanreed (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess a handful out of a pile is a flurry, but, islamophobia is absolutely nothing new for CP. They just go through peaks and down periods on whether the enemy is the evil muslims or somebody else. --Miekal 20:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

CP has a higher parodist-to-sincere wingnut ratio than the clogosphere as a whole, which makes "policy" a meaningless term. VargasMilan is a good example. He's a nasty little troll but has been stirring up the Islam mud of late. SamHB, bless his heart, takes him seriously and defends reason.img It's all so damned predictable. Whoover (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I read the ridiculous CP "article" about "Does God have a sense of humor?" and wrote refutations to some of the most ridiculous "arguments", in the talk page. For example, I pointed out that if God is the opposite of atheistic political leaders, since Mikhail Gorbachev is an atheistic political leader and also a criticizer of Putin, God must like Putin; that there is no mystery to the Easter Island statues: the Rapa Nui built them, period, and to say that nobody knows who built them IMO borders on racism; that North Korea can be quite funny at times, and that Germany, where the Christian Democratic Union is a very strong party, is also known for its lack of humor; and that if God has humor because men have humor and men are made in the image of God, then as men are sexually attracted to women and men are made in the image of God, God must also be sexually attracted to women.
The reaction of a CP admin named "Karajou"16:43, 22 November 2014‎— Unsigned, by: Hinmatóowyalahtqit / talk / contribs

"Whoohoo look what I did on Conservapedia! Lookit! Looooook! Oh I got blocked." SophieWilder 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't you know that to troll CP you must be formless? The CP sysops saw Hinmatóowyalahtqit unprepared and swooped like a falcon. Fonzie (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

For God's sake, please don't call me a troll.

I read about CP in a news article about Citizendium. I went to CP and read a bunch of articles, including "Evolution", but "Rapa Nui statues are unexplained" was what finally made me post, as that shows...well...utter ignorance. I initially wrote only about that, but then I read some more "evidence" for God having humor so I wrote some more. Then they banned me and I was looking for a place to complain, because I was really mad, not at the banning, but at my arguments having been deleted, and me being called a troll. Then I found this site through Wikipedia. So no, not a troll. — Unsigned, by: Hinmatóowyalahtqit / talk / contribs

Can I call you Joseph? It's a shame that you didn't do some more homework before your suicide mission over there. There is plenty of documentation on how the site is run. Your outcome was quite predictable, which is what commenters here are saying. Take heart. Rational argument has no place at Conservapedia. Now you know. Whoover (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Your'e a bit of Johnny-come-lately to Conservapedia whereas many of RW old hands were there 7 years ago and saw it decline very rapidly form a "home-schooled Christian Conservative" encyclopedia project of teenagers into a wing nut propaganda site ruled by a group of angry, middle-aged, male bullies. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 08:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange. A bunch of uppity colored people causing trouble and almost no activity on CP? No blatant racism from the overlords? Is anyone awake on that goat-forsaken site? 205.237.78.11 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Terry and his hate filled friends have been busy on his hate blog though. I don't think he's link-whored it to cp yet. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My bad, of course he had within minutes. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure in Andy's mind Satan also wears tailored suits, Italian loafers, and a gold Rolex. He's also fond of hanging out in back alleys, duping desperate people in signing over their soul in exchange for earthly riches... --Inquisitor (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The courts have tried to treat Satan as a person before in United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff. They couldn't make much progress because they didn't know if it was legally possible to sue a foreign Prince.-- Forerunner (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In many contexts, "person" is not synonymous with "human being". In philosophy, for instance, the term "person" is often used to mean either "rational being" or "morally relevant being" or something similar. In that sense, Satan would be a person, even if he is only a spiritual being. Phiwum (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Obviously person and "human being" are different - a smart Bonobo has a better claim to personhood than a newborn human baby, but I think the question would be whether Christians (and perhaps Jews because this stuff didn't start with the Christians) see Satan as "real" or whether that's one of the places where they think the Bible isn't intended literally. Most Christians who've spent any time thinking about it don't buy the straight up "it all happened exactly as written" interpretation and once you've set off down that road you can decide Satan is just a metaphor and indeed there have been people who call themselves Christian but reject a historical Jesus Christ. So the question is what's the mainstream view. And I suspect the mainstream doesn't think about this at all, in the same way that most people going to church last Sunday have never spent even five minutes wondering about the inconsistencies in the gospels or whether trinitarianism makes any kind of sense. Tialaramex (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I may be reading you incorrectly because I'm on my phone. I disagree that there's much basis for claiming that christians can sensibly consider Satan to be just a metaphor. The OT and NT specifically refers to Satan as a rational agent a number of times. although they're not remotely the same concept or person and much of the Christian conception of the actual nature of Satan is spurious. For example, IIRC the bible doesn't expressly refer to Satan as a fallen angel or the serpent in the Garden of Eden, making those claims unbiblical. I think you're correct in the sense that it's very difficult to suss out what is the actual nature of Satan. The elephant in the room is that Andy is conflating tenuous apocryphal storytelling with reality. Big surprise that embracing a tradition of making stuff up is more appealing to him that actually reading his holy book and thinking for himself. So, while Satan may be a "person" in the sense that it has agency, it's still extremely difficult to say anything about what Satan actually is. I also disagree that mainstream christians don't think about what Satan is intended to be. It is extremely common, and perhaps even the majority position, that the serpent that tempted Eve was Satan and that he therefore had a hand in the fall. I don't the claim is well-supported, but the fall is obviously incredibly important to christians because salvation is the central theme of their entire religion. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Satan" is the Hebrew word for "foe," and mostly refers to human adversaries in the Old Testament. I think Job is the only time that satan is translated as "Satan" (as opposed to "enemy") because this Foe convinces God to make Job's life hell. The nature of the Foe is not stated, except that he has no powers but must have God do the dirty work. The New Testament is clearer. For instance, Satan is associated both with Eve's seducer and fallen angels in Revelations 12:9. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.(KJV) Whoover (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Adversary" is a better translation. The OT (Jewish) Satan is the name for interchangeable agents of God who work like the prosecutor in a jury and serve to challenge the faith of mortals. The Christian faith links the figures of Satan-the-adversary with just about every evil thing mentioned in the OT (particularly the Serpent in Genesis) to get the figure of Satan-the-enemy. Yeah, you certainly have to ignore a lot of stuff to regard Satan as just a metaphor, but you have to ignore a lot of stuff in the Bible to not be a murderous child-abusing sociopath too, so that's hardly pushing things. King Skeleton (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Aaargh. "If you’re going to quote from the Book of Revelation, don’t keep calling it the Book of Revelations, there’s no 's', it’s the Book of Revelation, as revealed to St John the Divine. See also Mary Hopkin, she must despair." ProblemChimp (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to cause so much pain with a typo. Whoover (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oozing from every pore of andy'simg being. The ONLY reasons anyone leaves their country is either to abandon their family or to claim benefits. Nothing to do with war, famine or anything. Just hatred of their family and desire to benefit from 'entitlements' and 'opportunities'. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If somebody has an unused sock, please ask which was the reason his great-grandparents gave for immigrating? PsyGremlinRunāt! 16:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Did anyone grab the latest missive that a member for the Ken entity wrote on 26 November, only for it to be deleted by another member of the entity 1¼ hours later? CS Miller (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Why bother trying? The only way you'll ever catch the man-childs ravings are if you happen to be on the page as he creates it. They rarely last more than 30 minutes or so and they are all basically the same. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mayflies have a more fulfilling life than Ken. Генгисevolving 17:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

True. They get gobbled up by lovely lovely trout and fulfill an important roll in the grand scheme of things. Ken gets gobbled by nobody and serves only his vanity and pride. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that adult mayflies eat less food but get more sex. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

They make their way to the surface from the dark of the bottoms of streams to shed their salad days and live but a single day as adults, often the most beautiful of the year. They spin about over the water, wooing each other with an entrancing and ancient dance until they couple. Their entire purpose is done. The females skit across the surface of the water laying eggs that might in a year or even many years become another hatch of duns making their ways to the side of the stream to fulfill their destinies. And the fête ends as life leaves them and they delicately fall to the water, where a trout holding in a riffle downstream gobbles one with a tiny splash only trout fisherman can hear. This is why their order is called ephemeroptera. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the advantages of always being right is that you don't have to worry about being consistent. Spud (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

When you are allowed to pronounce on diverse topics without being challenged - or your lickspittle lackies silencing any challenge - then you have no need for consistency, and indeed will probably be supported in it by Ed Poor with a misunderstood "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". ГенгисRationalWikiGOLDmember 09:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think a lot of people underestimate how knowingly hypocritical Andy is. He's out for his own interests, not yours, and he has no sense of shame. "You shouldn't go to liberal universities. They're horrible! But my kids are going to Yale and Harvard, just like I did." or "Grade inflation is awful" - Andy Schlafly, magna cum laude from Harvard, one of the nation's worst offenders in grade inflation. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention his own marking of papers... PsyGremlinRunāt! 15:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The international manchild of mystery has a new mysteryimg for noone to be interrested in and which all trace of will be burnt after nothing happens. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There are "leading anti-atheism" groups? That's funny... Googling anti-atheism, just brings up links like "discrimination against atheists" and "top 10 scary states to be an atheist." So, when this week Ken? Will be see a link to it when they do? Or is it just you, posting under one of your many pseudonyms, making a blog comments along the lines of "In regards to your article, please read this article I wrote on Conservapedia?" And than, as has happened before, you getting slagged off by people you seem to think are on your side. PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a delicious irony in religious people forming anti-atheism groups. It's an open acknowledgement that they have lost the argument, but I don't expect the Ken-committee to realise this. ГенгисRationalWikiGOLDmember 10:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is from a man who supports tazering a pushy woman with rude kids.[4]--Mercian (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And burnt already. Back to the bunny hole Ken. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

He is getting that way isn't he. He's just spent an hour adding Jewish People and American Jews as categories to hundreds of entries. I can see he and Joaquin getting along famously. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't help that MPR isn't even subtly racist in its insincere "hey I have a black friend" sense and fraudulent misrepresentation. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If that guys a parodist he's sicker than anyone there. Why would anyone go to that much trouble just to achieve, well what? I don't even know what it is he would be achieving. — Unsigned, by: 131.107.147.239 / talk / contribs

Not at all. He's just a run of the mill racist, par for the course over there. andy is far sicker imo and as for anger bear, well.... Oldusgitus (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

So I wonder... if CP Conservative of the Year was an actual award (complete with statue and certificate suitable for framing), would any of the recipients actually accept it? For bonus points: what would the prize statue look like? --Inquisitor (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A mini-Reagan ala the Oscar? And I'm sure there's some people who would accept it, maybe not put the frame up on their wall but they'd still accept it.--Miekal 05:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think it would be Atlas shrugging. Really encompasses the collective reaction to the award too. AyzmoCheers 14:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Germany is up for the award. The country most apposed to his man crush Putin.--Mercian (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember that. I've literally seen porn award trophies that look less phallic than that thing.

I like the ConservaMath Medalimg, especially how after four years later there is still no winner. And that isn't because the Field Medals is handed once every four years. As we've seen, it's just pure incompetence. --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps they're still looking for someone who can put two and two together? Or prove that π = 3? ProblemChimp (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

At least 1000 edits in the last 4 or 5 days and he can't stop asking for patience or telling us he's a survivalist and practitioner of alternative medicine. Ed Poor would say that the guy is a little off but that he needs to be encouraged, as he did of Ken. TK would say he's a little off, but CP needs workers, as he did of Ken. Karajou is feverishly looking up redoubt in the dictionary. I do wonder what they think of this weirdo. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

He's another ken really isn't he. He self-evidently has no job as he spends every waking minute editing cp. I doubt very much he has a wife or family for the same reason, or if he does they've disowned him by now. He's almost monomaniacal in his editing practices. I can just imagin him sitting in a surbaban complex somewhere in the US surrounded by his guns and beans telling himself he's ready for the up-coming war. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

His last 500img contributions have come in just over 3 days. He seems takes a break between 8.30 and 17.00 (so maybe he does have a job but if so he doesn't need much sleep) but on Dec 12 he went from 1.16 to 8.30 without a break making 120 or so edits then back again at 23.04 and through to 8.23 the next day without a break making over 240 edits. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

He marked +10,863 as a minor edit; could that be a record, over all wikis? It's not just the number of edits, it's the size of them. And, have you seen the number of planned articles on his userpage? ProblemChimp (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok I've decided. Now he's got night editing rights from kenny he's coming out as a parodist slowly but surely. Seriously, The Two Towers film is a novel but is also survivalist fictionimg and dystopian fiction (whatever the fuck that is). Ken, he's a paradoist and now we've told you you can claim to have noticed him before anyone else at cp. No need to thank us. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think he's just nuts. Apparently Starship Troopers is Dystopian Fiction, Survivalist Fiction, and Conservative Fiction. They live in a utopian society in which women can advance ahead of men, all facilities are co-ed, etc. Nuts or not, most of what he's doing isn't just pointless, it's embarrassing and should at some point be stopped and undone. But Ken doesn't give a shit and Karajou doesn't do a lick of work. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Good call, imo. A freelancer, I'd guess, who hasn't yet found RW? Some of his edits are too good to be true, and all the ones I've looked at show real promise. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

His aim is clearly adding as many redlinks and random content to CP as possible. I wonder when we eventually does get banned, that they will remove the content he created. Larron could you use your magic and see how many deadlinks and edits he has made in recent times ? He seems to be outclassing ken. Ghost (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Another red flag is that the bulk of the category edits are bogus. Adding San Francisco values to Pepperdineimg, which is 400 miles from the Bay Area is one example. His obsession with outing Jewsimg is also a red flag. But if his is also performance art, I am awed by his dedication. Pathology is a simpler explanation. Whoover (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

His edits to Top Gearimg are also quite odd. As is his edit too Bill Clintonimg. Although the fact he hasn't used his blocking powers to suppress the no bodies (granted there isn't many there anyway) makes me think he is just mad. Ghost (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Choices, choices. Will the CP line be that if the hostages had been armed, there would have been less loss of life? Or, that all Muslims are terrorists? Or, that gun control laws encourage loonies to acquire handguns? Or, that notorious loonies shouldn't be allowed near handguns? There must be a way to combine more than one of those ideas. ProblemChimp (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I do love kenny's comment that in Texas you don't get hostage situations. He's absolutely right, you just get head cases walking in and immediately firing killing as many as they can - and I realise that Texas has been relatively quite on the actual killing of children in schools for 40 years or so but you know what I mean. Does anyone know when the last school shooting was in Australia and how many they have had compared to the US? Anyone care to mention the timeline and the casualty figures to the man-child? Oldusgitus (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And as if on cue we have this. Wonder if kenny will mention this on mpr? Oldusgitus (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The last school shooting in UK was Dunblane in 1996, at a primary school: 18 dead, 15 injured. That led to private ownership of handguns being effectively banned. Four months later came the Wolverhampton attack, also on a primary school, by a man with a machete: 0 dead, 7 injured. I can't think of a more recent attack on a school.

More recently, we've had Monkseaton in 1989, a man with a shotgun shooting randomly: 1 dead, 14 injured; and Cumbria in 2010, a well-armed criminal with a grudge, who shot both targetted and random victims: 12 dead, 11 injured. That's all I can think of in at least the last 20 years (bombings are another matter). ProblemChimp (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I remember Hungerford when I was a kid.--Mercian (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘kenny's giving usimg a shout out. How sweet of kenny. Now kenny, explain why in Australia 2 people, and the hostage taker, died in a hostage situation that lasted almost an entire day before being brought to to an end whilst on the same day a US veteran slaughtered 6 family members in minutes with his weapon of defence? Oldusgitus (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And here was me thinking that all Amish live in Pennsylvania, you learn something every day. ProblemChimp (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't he a hard nut, calling people sissy boys behind his chobham armour. By the way Ken, how did your dance with the red head beauty go? Before calling people sexually abusive names remember that about a year ago a "concerned" CP user, who you later banned, had a quiet off piste word with Andy about removing some very questionable videos from one of your pet articles.--Mercian (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of "Amish are not Pacifist"img Kenny, does his apparent support of the "Sandy Hook never happened"img school of gun-nutism signal a new descent into his world of fantasy? Or has he been this wacko on gummint conspiracy Truths all along? For some reason, I found this "news" from him a bit startling. Whoover (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a sad day. My favorite Counterexample to Relativity, "earthquakes in Ireland," has been removed by Andy himselfimg. Inserted by banned parodist Spielman over two years agoimg, this gem survived many deletions and reversions (often by other parodists). Andy conflates all atheistic science, so it made sense to him viscerally. I wonder what changed his mind. It couldn't be all the contemptuous mocking, to which he is immune. Whoover (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Or fact-checking. What a splendid paragraph that was. ProblemChimp (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It was pointed out to him on the talk page by JoeyJ. Open minded (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No it wasn't. After Andy deleted it he posted about other Counterexamples that the same parodist inserted. It was also after my post. I guess he lurks here too. Or more. Whoover (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

SamHB is poking him on the talk page. It's good to see some classic Andy. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a Nobel for Andy in his discovery that the "relativistic" correction in GPS clocks is actually because the laws of physics are not invariantimg? But Andy sets off my parodistdar when he responds to SamHB's question about conservation of mass by "mistakenly" speaking of loss of energy, not mass. It's not possible that he doesn't see the difference. This has to be performance art. Whoover (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And if not the GPS one, Reason #51 is certainly a Nobel candidate (presumably it only applies to electrons less than 6000 lightyears apart). ProblemChimp (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Independent has a review of Dumb and Dumber To - a movie that I have no intention of seeing - but this quote caught my eye.

In the final reel, the filmmakers take great pleasure in sending up highbrow TED conferences by showing Carrey and Daniels wreaking havoc at a “KEN” conference - an event, ironically, at which they seem to fit in relatively comfortably.

I'd be more annoyed if it were before TED got all pseudosciencey and cultlike. Ikanreed (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

TED Talks are pretty much a pseudo-intellectual freakshow at this point. Real scientists, with real discoveries, get greeted to real blank stares. While some weirdo from Norway who can taste colors and has written a flute-operated interface for his Google Glass that allows him to overcome his fear of rice, masturbation, and crowds... gets wildly applauded. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

They're also a self-aggrandizing circlejerk. A 24 year old acquaintance who worked at a VC firm for 6 months gave a "talk" about entrepreneurship and venture capital. I had to leave. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't really seen anyone getting on board with Andy about his theory that Fidel Castro died a while back and the Cuban government has been using body doubles. That is, until recently when I was reading about the thawing in American-Cuban relations:

“”That was more than five decades ago, and Fidel is still there, an old and frail man who ceded his power to younger brother Raul. Why doesn’t Fidel die?

15:06, 21 December 2014 AugustO (Talk | contribs) blocked Conservative (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Sockpuppet/Abusing multiple accounts: using a sock in a deceitful way (Historybuff))

So much for honouring a block.-- 16:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't even honor his alleged god, which just goes to show at his religion really is the hatefulness, vanity, and the Cult of CMI. He drank Weiland, Batten. And Sarfati's deceitful Koolaid. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Conservative vowed that he would not be reading or responding to any talk pages until January 1, 2016. Are you telling me he's not a man of integrity? --Inquisitor (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

To me that is the worse thing about Conservapedia, that the inner circle are de facto above the rules which are applied so zealously to those outside it. Perhaps Ken actually has us all fooled, nobody could have possibly done more to tarnish the image of Andy than he has.--Mercian (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The gift that keeps on giving dusts off "Best New Conservative Words" and decides that "small talk"img is totes a conservative word. I mean phrase. Andy doesn't know the difference. PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This difference is more dubious than you probably think. English is unusual, against the broad spectrum of living languages today, in having both a very strong written tradition and an orthography with clear "word boundaries" enabling a more or less plausible mechanical division. So we consider "small talk" to be a compound rather than a single word, and then we have to include definitions for some of these compounds in our dictionaries (because "small talk" is not defined as "talk which is small") and we get the awkward idea of "headwords" which get an entry in a dictionary but aren't orthographically words. But some other languages don't have this orthographic false clarity. So then you're down to trying to divine what is or is not indivisible about the sounds. Languages which permit wide use of infix will mess you up quickly here. English mostly limits infix to its most universal swear word, thus "abso-fucking-lutely" and "re-fucking-diculous" but even with only one commonplace example you can see how this practice messes up any attempt to discern what is a "word" or not. Tialaramex (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You could also have just said "Best New Conservative Words" refers to words plural. His idioms and neologisms are "words", hence they're eligible to be "Best New Conservative Words" in a world inhabited by Andy and a small coterie of sycophants and clingers-on vastly outnumbered by bad faith editors on their site. And oh my god that's some pedantry right there. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's pretty obvious why Andy decided to write that during the holiday season. I also guess that his relatives aren't particularly thrilled to be talking with him either, be it small or otherwise. --Night Jaguar (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

everything is an issue with that man, and even worse a political issue. He must be insufferable. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd interested to know what combination of akward, entertaining and excruciating make up a Schlafly family gathering. Do Roger and Andy fight over relativity? Are all the women in the kitchen or just most of them? Is John invited and, if so, is he instructed to stay quiet about his alternative lifestyle? --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

John's situation appears to be a nonissue since he's also "conservative". However, I doubt Andy's invited to his mom's house or that Roger would travel halfway across the country. Andy may have his mom over to his house. Where is the largest concentration of children and family, not including Fred Schlafly's kin, whom PS appears to loathe for being liberal boozers. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Karajou links to a blog declaring "Everything liberals say is a lie. No exceptions." I relish conservatives dealing in these kinds of ridiculous absolutes. It shows that people like Karajou are either insanely stupid or knowingly lying. If only there were young impressionable minds on CP to see it... Occasionaluse (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

OU, I don't think he even got far enough to consider the truth value or ramifications of the statement. He's astonishingly stupid. I think it just happened to reinforce his hate for "other", so he linked it. Nutty Roux (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

When you're perpetually angry, stopping to think is not something that happens naturally. ГенгисGum disease 05:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

To be fair to anger bear when you seem to be pretty much a failure at most things and when noone, not even ken, takes a thing you say seriously - then it is very hard NOT to be perpetually angry. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

He's not a total failure. I was picking up some meats at the Italian butcher near my workshop and started talking to someone while on line for the register. She mentioned she is from Alton. I said "ohhh" slowly. She volunteers that she knows how rotten Phyllis Schlafly. I console her by offering that not all of Fred Schlafly's family are turds, but that Phyllis hired her Andy to sue one of them for besmirching her married name by associating it with alcohol. We talk a bit more about Andy Schlafly. So, you see, Karajou has at least succeeded in associating himself with obscure people who are so distinctively awful that strangers find common ground discussing them. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't find anything on Facebook to support Ken's claims. Nothing on the generic Facebook page, nothing on the fan page. Is this just another flying kitty from the international collective of mystery? London Grump (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Amazing how he has all these 100's of admirers but not one has turned op on CP. He's lying.--Mercian (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

He also got a whole two 'tweets' (I don't think Ken knows how twitter works and doesn't have an account, It seem's Jpatt's hatefuled account is now the conservapedia account) Ghost (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Linky?? Or has it been burned and salted already? PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

(EC)He's not exactly lying, actually. He's talking about the Freedom From Atheism Foundation facebook page linking to one of his idiotic articles. Look at who is liking the link, though. Almost none of them speak English, which strikes me as strange that they would be liking this English-only article on an English-only facebook page. So I'd be willing to bet the guy running the page has rented a bot to like his articles, since almost all of his links have roughly the same amount of likes and they're almost all from Indonesia. Kind of pathetic, really. Cow...Hammertime! 13:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

(EC) The likes are probably coming from the hundreds of click-farms (i.e. sweatshops) in Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc. These outfits exist because of dodgy 'pay for fans' agencies that some businesses unwisely use to kick-start their social media presence or make their page look more popular than it actually is. But that doesn't necessarily mean FFAF has used one of these agencies: click-farm likes are so endemic on Facebook that if you do any 'boosted posts' or other paid advertising without targeting the advert appropriately (i.e. limiting by country etc), then you inevitably pick up a lot of likes & fans from them. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 13:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how many people will click on the .TK link in that FB page? I've never seen one which wasn't some sort of spam, scam or malware. (That one is phishing.) ProblemChimp (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the comments, why did I read the comments. As for the likes, that's probably because he paid to boost the post. Somebody - can't remember who - had a great article on how he created a FB page about cats and yogurt (or something), paid for a small post, and all his likes came from places like Bangladesh and Indonesia. PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

How many views has the CP page had? Ruddager (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Currently 590 views, significantly less than the number of "likes" he received. It looks like most of his fans haven't even looked at, much less read, his article. Snrub (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

590 views? The way Ken edits almost all of those must be his. DickTurpis (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Before I went to bed last night there was a section on the talk page about atheism and obesity, how 27th December was a terrible day for atheism and all us obese fatsos at RW should watch what we eat in 2015, which incidentally will be the worst year for Darwinism ever, the ides of March even got a mention complete with Chinese writing. I wake up this morning and all that remains is this.[7]--Mercian (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping for a release date on the QE booklet or an update on Project 200+ Snrub (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I see AugustO is back and is straight into pointing out ken's lies and hypocrisyimg. He's also doing a lot of nose tweaking of andyimg at the moment. Just how does he get away with it? Any other peon would have been long ban hammered by anger bear. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Just above AugustO: "Nature is not a top-tier physics journal. It's popularized science, which is all that the silly E=mc2 formula is." - Andy Schlafly 22 December 2014. You couldn't make it up. ProblemChimp (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh god. During grad school, if there's one thing I learned, it's that Nature is the journal all physicists aspire to be published in. Forget Phys Rev and Phys Lett, it's all about Nature. - Grant (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material" (1953).

I think it was Nature once published a letter containing a reviewer's report on Shelley's Ozymandias, with suggested footnotes. E.g.

"The lone and level sands[1] stretch far away."

[1] The sand was a slightly-positively-skewed leptokurtic multimodal fine-grained sand, with a faint but persistent smell of camel dung.

While "it's all about Nature" the thing is that what you read in Nature is so often garbage. As a rule of thumb the more specialist the journal the more likely that whatever it's publishing is actually true. Stuff in Nature does, indeed, get read, and re-published, and cited, and if you have a publish-or-die job that can be vital. But Nature thinks your "peers" for the purposes of peer review can be just about anybody who'd be working in the same building as you at a major university. Astronomers squinting at new quantum chromodynamics work, people who've spent their life staring down a microscope critiquing a paper on animal behaviour... So the result is that horrible errors will slip past Nature that wouldn't survive review in your own discipline's more specialised journals.

A friends who has no time for the publish-or-die culture pointed out to me that if I bothered to write down my comments on the (joke) BMJ Christmas Paper (the stuff about Darwin Awards that got all that press coverage a few weeks back) they would no doubt pass muster for publication and I could claim with a straight face to have been "published in the British Medical Journal" though I've no medical training to speak of and not even a PhD. Tialaramex (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Whoever was playing those accounts earlier I have to say well played. You managed to get Anger Bear and Kenny to revert an edit of andy's where he removed Augutso's questions. August reverted andy and then a couple of fake accounts removed the question again, and anger bear and ken reverted the fake accounts. Meaning andy can't now remove the question without reverting brian and ken. Top playing. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't easily find it online. Late 60s or early 70s, I think. ProblemChimp (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Backed into a corner by a German? bring up the Second World War.[edit]

RW should never have noted the "supposed" difference in one of Ken's articles, he will play on it forever.[1]img.--Mercian (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Burned, but nobody needs to read it to understand that he's doing he same thing as always. The fact that a few articles do appear to have some stylistic differences from Ken's usual style doesn't justify (fruitlessly) attempting to cultivate others' misapprehensions. That's called lying, Ken. As a lawyer, I've represented people in fraud cases against car dealers that cultivated similar misapprehensions of material facts. Ken then taunts people over their inability to prove what an honest man wouldn't misrepresent. Some moral code his bible and barbaric god instill. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I did a screen capture[8]. Happy New Year all.--Mercian (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

German evolutionists took a lot of their ideas from American evolutionists, especially on eugenics, especially considering America is one of the few countries on the planet to ever implement a government controlled eugenics program. BUT NAH THAT'S INCONVENIENT. X Stickman (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I take it from all theamericanredoubts edits that either andy is pro woo, or doesn't give a fuck. I know andy is crazy but i would have thought enemas laced with heavy metals would be a bit beyond him. Ghost (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I see we seem to have a revert war brewing between cp's latest parody editor and the old school SamHB. Wonder how that will end up. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried, ken killed my sock and removed the post. I think the plebs are two interested in TAR (aka DVergne) at this point in time. Ghost (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the point. Rather like TAR there's no point in trying to mention that he is breaking the username policy. He evidentally has the approval of the admins over there and if he is a sock then by the time they notice he will have done so much damage it will be impossible to remove all his crap. He is also playing quite well in not following the markman pick a fight with everyone route. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If TAR is a parodist, I have to wonder what he's getting out of it. He's spending an enormous amount of time adding a few drops of crazy to a stew that's already fucking nuts. At the end of the day, if you're looking to compare the quantity of nonsense he's adding vs the objectively stupid stuff that's already there or will be added by Ken or Andy, there's no comparison. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh snap. He is a parodist. Or his parents hated the idea of having children and wanted to punish him for life. Nobody is actually named "Jefferson Franklin". Nutty Roux (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hooo there's no doubt. The exercise article is now in Category:Tibetan Medicine and Category:Survivalism. Cleaning up after that guy will be like Hercules in the Augean stables. Ghost, why do you say it's DVergne? Nutty Roux (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I still think he's just a nut. I'm loving how everything is about survivalism now. It's perfectly in key with the crazy chord over there. TAR, if you are a parodist, I dare you to somehow get survivalism into Karajou's bird articles and/or start writing for TerryH's blogs about how to survive on nothing but your own urine and a handful of acorns. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I swing between nut and parodist. Some of his edits are nutty without question but some are pure parody as Nutty mentioned above. However I can believe that some yank would name their child Jefferson Franklin, it's the kind of idiocy I would expect from the right wing in the US tbh. We've had parents in Europe trying to name their child Hitler after all. I just can't make up my mind but whatever he is he is managing to drive the very few good faith editors still over there at cp into despair and I can see the last few of them giving up leaving the entire place to the loonies. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think TAR is a nut regardless if he's a parodist or not. No sane person wastes that much time editing CP. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm generally tending towards parodist. It looks like he's even now started dropping hintsimg about it as well. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
He isn't Dvergne or Markaman, i just added that to piss karajew off. Ghost (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ken's comments when blocking Augusto "untrimming Andy's talk page. A talk page is a user's castle!". Of course he has never reverted a talk page entry to hide his deception.--Mercian (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I was tempted to wait until he next did that to someone talk page and then have my sock block him for 24 hours and link to that block reason but I decided against it in the end. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If you block Ken, he'll invoke his Super Powers (pow! shazzam!), unblock himself and block you permanently. It happened to one of my socks. Nobody can take out Ken except Andy "As Much Backbone As An Ediacaran Jellyfish" Schlafly. Cardinal Fang(talk) 15:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Is that talkpage as castle claim actually a rule on CP? I would have thought even those knuckleheads would accept that the integrity of all talkpages was necessary if for no other reason than for preserving institutional knowledge, but that would mean they'd have to care about good management and consistency. Oh but what a confusing mess you get when people are citing unwritten rules described only informally on talk pages when Ken routinely burns every single thing that makes him look like a dope or threatens the perception of power he thinks he's cultivating. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

bis prothesis Estin adikein , even unto them nor equitable apology power? By the way Ken has come up with a solution to stop liberal sissy boys lying[9] "If liberals had received more spankings, maybe they wouldn't be such big liars."--Mercian (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'd be lying if I didn't jump through some hoops to find the original greek instead of the English. Common interpretation: "Any excuse serves a tyrant". Ikanreed (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've not been paying a huge amount of attention over the past few days but whenever I have checked cp the recent edits have been completely dominated by this editor. He doesn't seem to have taken more than about 8 hours off in that time and has spent the entire rest of the time adding silly categories to articles and creating pointless stub articles which he says he will improve on later. Can anyone do a quick count on total edits since 24th December, edits by AR and length of breaks he has been taking? This guy is taking obsessed to an entire new level, out-kenning even the kenmeister himself. I still suspect he's a parodist though. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think he's just crazy/odd. Every parodist with blocking rights has always used them to either try and keep favor with Andy or bully the pleebs, although he could be playing the long game and trying to get admin rights. He's also adding soo much shit that it would be a fair effort to remove it all. Would be very nice if Larron could work his sexy magic and make a couple of awesome and informative graphs. Ghost (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree he's probably just nuts and that the standard strategy has been to bully. At most, parodists add trivial content in order to be able to spend enough time on talk pages driving off good faith editors, as well as play off Andy's incredible vanity by aggressively protecting his biblical "insights" and "counterexamples". I'm not sure it's particularly heartening that SamHB, AugustO, and AlanE are allowed to be heard and not just seen. They're wasting their time. I guess simply making a record for homeschool parents and your average christian conservative of how extreme and ridiculous CP is is a fair goal. It also help to provide any other visitors with good entertainment, since Ken is such an absolutely jackass and his hateful responses don't resemble in the least what one would expect of a "christian". Nutty Roux (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that sadly ken's hateful responses are exactly the type of repsonses I have come to expect from many xians. I do find it refreshing that I meet many who reject the kind of hatred expressed by most at cp but sadly I listened to the Desert Island Discs with Justin Welby the other day and his opposition to allowing people to marry because of his interpretation of a fairy tale depressed me rather a lot and reminded me that even the most benign seeming xians still can still harbour hatred deep in their hearts. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This guy has to be either a consumsate parodist or he is a headcase. His latest effort is to edit the leaf articleimg and several others over at cp to add some insane stuff about ayurvedic medicine to it. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What are the key points about transformers? How they're used? Why they work? Nope, skip all that; the important thing is that they can be destroyed by an EMP. I hope Americanredoubt expands *all* the articles like this! [2]img. Spielman (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Brrrr, it's cold across much of the US. But as yet, none of the annual fun that is Andy banging on about it being a tad nippy out being obvious proof global warming is a liberal lie. I suspect a flu. DogP (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am certain he knows he is talking bollocks with his cold weather = global warming hoax. I remember him saying it was a hoax when snow fell somewhere on Halloween. Never mind the fact that here it was 21c/70f on 31st October, the warmest in recorded history. I know Western Australia is having a heatwave at the moment. I suppose liberals could have doctored the thermostats.--Mercian (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it's entirely normal that we went from days in the 40s and 50s after Christmas to single digits in the first week of the new year. Never mind that that's weather and not climate. Global warming is a liberal hoax. Here's the magic of his analysis: he'll always be correct because the seasons will always change and warm days will always be followed by cool ones and outliers are always evidence for his position and never evidence against. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thing is I reckon fundies like andy do think it is all a liberal hoax. They firmly believe their loving, caring deity who allegedly inundaterd the entire world killing almost everything has promised not to do anything like that again so it can't be happening. If it were it would mean either their deity is a liar or is not real and neither one is acceptable to them. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Their god actually only covenanted that it would not destroy the earth by flood.

“”I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.

—Yahweh

It has a solid record of destroying things in other manners, though not the whole shebang. I find it inconsistent that christians claim that only god can destroy the world, which may or may not be true, while denying a very real mechanism for it doing so that's perfectly consistent with the way it has already very conspicuously used to justify destroying things like the Tower of Babel and entire cities like Sodom and Gomorrah: letting those rotten sinners sin. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(EC) What about best conservative words doubling? Not only is this prima facie insane, Larron actually went to the trouble to spell it out for him, to no avail. Is this a matter of delusion? Stupidity? Wrongheadedness? Lying? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually convinced that it isn't just people like Andy who have a pretty loose regard for the truth, but that it's pretty common across the board. I see it on RW quite a lot, and it's sometimes accompanied by the same kind of arrogance that Andy, Ken, Terry, and MacDonald display. It's possible they're only wrongheaded for the most part. I do think that theists like Rayment are knowingly deceitful, but he is a very special breed of cultist. Nutty Roux (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

To some degree, when you're surrounded by people who constantly tell you that you're right, it's easy to begin thinking you're infallible. That kind of attitude can easily lead to an arrogant loose regard for the truth, as you put it. - Grant (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Ken still hasn't figured out that all his Facebook likes are from fake accounts. Or maybe he does know it and just doesn't care. Snrub (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, he knows. He's just a lying mendacious tosser. And I notice that one of the conservative collective has returned to edit despite, as noted on WIGO, that several of his personalities will be too busy to do so. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

One member of the Conservative account is starting his own business. Any details Ken? Or is it a clandestine business with no need for advertisement?--Mercian (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean like a private shop? Bicyclewheel 19:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You are UK based then I take it or do they have Private shops elsewhere? I reckon he's opened one of those 'work from home' emails and has now paid his welfare cheque over to them and thinks he is now a self-employed businessman. Oldusgitus (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I live in Totnes. It's not UK based, it's on a different plane entirely. Bicyclewheel 21:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

If you live in totnes then you are almost in cornwall and hence live in an entirely different century, universe and plane of existance. now go dance around some stones and worship king arthur or something similar :-) .Oldusgitus (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I take it that that a private shop is what we call a "sex shop." One might sell pasties, which are also different in Cornwall I understand. My grandmother called the bits that other people called "privates," "publics." She believed this is where the term "public hair" came from. I also remember spit takes all around when she announced at dinner, in her Yiddish accent, that the neighbor lady got a new vulva. Due to my youth, I knew she was talking about an imported car and didn't understand the fuss. So is a private shop so named because it caters to one's privates? Whoover (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As to "work from home": The sinister purpose of those offers (the ones that aren't just a straight-up fraud) is to recruit mules for another fraud. That's why they can "pay" so much money. For example, maybe $5000 per day will magically arrive in your bank account, and you are simply to fill out some meaningless paperwork and forward $4500 to an off-shore account or send it as a money transfer. You're seemingly getting paid $500 for a few minutes of easy work, no money down, just as described.

Your value to the criminals is as a citizen with previously unblemished record, which means your transactions attract less scrutiny by both automated and manual anti-laundering systems. The longer there is between when you send them money and when a police officer rings your doorbell, the more likely they can get hold of the money without going to jail. That $5000 is usually real money, it's just not their real money. Unfortunately that means you're on the hook for it when the transaction is reversed, and you may end up both out of pocket and in jail. Tialaramex (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)